moderator remark: this post has been split from another thread it had no relation, connection or link to. So this thread has been created - for discussion of Ed Wright's article itself.

Ed Wright is still just talking off the top of his head. Neither he nor anyone else has shown that high flight rates will in fact produce savings. Once agin--we don't use small boats to move cargo--we use containerships.

The post had been added to the CXV-thread Andy Hill initiated - in that thread neither I nor nobody else referred or linked to Ed Wright's article.

This was the only reason to split it from the thread.

The thread which I based on Ed Wright's article was meant only to breath life into what has been said in the theoretical Costs-thread. I am using the article as an illustration of the theoretical explained links and connections of costs and the behaviour and nature of costs only but don't want to assist Ed Wright or oppone to him - I don't intend to discuss the article itself in that thread.

If the post would have been added to the "HLLV vs. flight rate..."-thread I wouldn't have split it. But in the CXV-thread it had no link or connection to that thread nor anybody reading the "HLLV vs. flight rate"-thread could see it there.

For this reason I created this thread for discussing Ed Wright's article itslef and made the unlinked post visible to everybody including those reading the "HLLV vs. flight-reate"-thread.

Here those posts of the "HLLV vs. flight rate..."-thread which fit best into this thread and should have been considered to be a good reason to initiate a new thread. The first post of this thread here seems to be an answere to these posts.

Of course, a first-generation RLV like Space Van might not pan out....

Oh really?

Many new vehicles are not quite right on the first attemptthe de Havilland Comet airliner, for example. But, even if it takes two or three generations for developers to get it right, the cost would still be a fraction of the $10 billion needed to develop NASA's super booster.

No it wouldn't.

X-33 proved that. VentureStar would have cost $50 billion. You don't send Cessenas to do an C-5As job. Now that he races crappy little rockets were supposed to take him seriously? Please.

He isn't the only one who can write an article. I deal with his kind of arguements here:

This examination shows there is no significant cost savings by pursuing the use of numbers of medium-lift vehicles when compared to the development of a new, shuttle-derived heavy lift booster. The development of such a heavy-lift booster supports the Presidents space vision by providing the capability of lofting heavy payloads to the Moon in support of the construction of a lunar base as well as providing the capability to conduct other missions. I believe the development of a heavy booster in conjunction with the appropriate use of medium-lift boosters and modular spacecraft represents the most effective strategy for the US manned space program.

And no, Edward is no relation to me. Thankfully.

I would rather fly in Apollo-level know-how than ride in the contraption of a fraud. His link doesn't even seem to be working now: http://www.racing-rockets.org/

This is what I mean about big-talking space-libertarians being damaging to real space progress. The Proxmire types take them seriously, gut needed propulsion funds, and when its time for the space libertarians to put-up or shut-up, they do neither. People didn't think they needed the R-7, the HLLV of its day--and I'd say it is selling quite well. Ariane V was supposed to be oversized, and yet its upgrade came as a result of payloads getting larger.

So let Ed have his little John Denver Special and wrap it around a pylon.

publiusr wrote: Just because SS1 is cheap doesn't make it better. It can be reusable as it wants to be and still not mine the moon, ..... I could launch one million sounding roclets for less than a Saturn V--but that won't get me to the moon either.

Of course no mater how many suborbital vehicles you launch you never get anywhere. But at least in theory a bunch of Falcon 1's could put a thousand ton interplanetary space ship in orbit one small piece at a time, although the lowest cost per pound is the smallest version of the Falcon 9.

As I see it, everyone is always comparing mature technologies, like cars, airplanes or boats to space craft and wondering why space craft cost so much more. Simple. Cars, planes and boats have already been invented. Space craft cost comes from the fact that you have to invent the space craft before you can build it. Maybe Space-X is getting close to "production" style rocket building. They sure seem to have done a quality job in a short time by using already invented technology.

campbelp2002 wrote: publiusr wrote: Just because SS1 is cheap doesn't make it better. It can be reusable as it wants to be and still not mine the moon, ..... I could launch one million sounding roclets for less than a Saturn V--but that won't get me to the moon either.

Of course no mater how many suborbital vehicles you launch you never get anywhere. But at least in theory a bunch of Falcon 1's could put a thousand ton interplanetary space ship in orbit one small piece at a time, although the lowest cost per pound is the smallest version of the Falcon 9. Maybe Space-X is getting close to "production" style rocket building.

Not with the launch delays they have had. By the time Falcon V assembled a 1,000 ton craft the sun would be in its Red Giant phase. ISS failed exactly because high flight rates never materialized. Musk--if he is lucky, will launch small payloads but nothing a person will ride in. Falcon IX is a big gamble, and I hope he pulls it off.

OTRAG in many ways was closer to being a production style rocket than the more tech intensive Falcons. The bigger OTRAGs would have had engine out--and the largest would have had very wide payloads, so the lenticular craft like what we saw on the cover of Popular Mechanics a few years ago would be possible.

Remember...

Just because some rocket racer pulls a bunch of estimates out of his tuckus doesn't make them true.

The argument in the link is stupid, and avoids the one great monolithic elephant-in-room problem with piecemeal missions: you have split your payloads up. Splitting a Lunar mission into small ton-scale pieces is stupid because you couldn't possibly split your payload up into pieces that small. Even the CEV service module will weigh ~20MT. Thats to say nothing of a crushing, idea-smashing costs associated with breaking up your mission into so many (critical!) pieces.

The costs associated with building 20-50MT class rockets are high enough that you wouldn't see a huge savings over one big HLLV, and a large RLV capable of 20MT class payloads would easily cost some tens of billions of dollars. Even a 10MT class vehicle could easily top $20Bn to develop.

"SpaceShipOne provides another example"

He's right, it does provide an example, that Mr. Wright is an idiot. Anyone who invokes the holy SpaceShipOne for comparison in ANY real venture is automatically a moron.

"Small reusable vehicles can revolution access to space the way microcomputers revolutionized access to computing"

No, they can't. The smaller your payload capacity is, the less things that you can reasonably do with it.

NASA should encourage private business to get into the game, but NASA neither can nor should give up pints of its own blood to private firms who aren't first willing to stick their necks out. NASA has been burned once over Lockheed's betrayal over the X-33, and no matter how much T/Space and the like whine about "if only we had some (no strings) NASA money, we could do XYZ!," they have to step up to the plate and make a commitment to space flight. Being that these are private companies, who naturally want to minimize risk and maximize their ability to bail if things go wrong, the only way that they can make such a commitment is by coming up with their own cash to get started.

And I'm talking real money, not pretend SpaceShipOne money, the kind with nine or more digits... THEN they can petition NASA for help. _________________ Beautiful

Personally I wouldn't give up on any type of launch capability. In the same fashion that we see all kinds of cars, vans, trucks and lorries, I expect that the future of space travel will include space worthy versions of the same thing. The economies mentioned don't seem to take into account the re-assembly of anything that had been shipped in parts. If I were in a position to put a new space telescope up, there is no way I'd trust anyone to assemble it up there. So it would require heavy lift facilities. Just because it's more expensive doesn't mean that it won't be done. That's just the cost of moving large heavy equipment. Yes I want it cheaper, but I'm not going to reduce the size of my payload just because it's cheaper.

Of course, micro satelites can and will be launched on relatively tiny modified ICBM's.

This is why I loathe folks like Ed Wright and the US 'Libertarian' Party types in some of the X-prize crowd.

If Ed and the rocket racers said:

"We support HLLV, and we are also going to race rocket planes to get more widespread support for spaceflight in general"

--I would have no problem.

But that isn't what he and Gump said. Both attacked Griffins heavy-lift mandate with their questionable little toys and I don't like it one bit. Gump attacked Griffin in an issue of AV Week awhile back, and Ed Wright wrote that miserable little HLV bashing piece for Space.com.

So there is no 'live and let live' philosophy on their part.

That is why I went after these US Libertarian Party types so much. They talk smack, hurt NASA--and when it is time to perform--have little to show for their efforts. To wit, their actions HURT spaceflight for us all.

Ekkehard Augustin, I really think such moderation is NOT helping.
If you want to help people to find information, just post a link (or links) to those other post(s).

Sometimes splitting topics, or in this case quoting other topics is ok, but this topic is just a perfect example of a large chaotic "mess", that possible only "you" find very logical, but others, and myself really don't like it.

Have to agree with Sigurd Ekk, often you let your sense of logic drive you to highly illogical and pedantic outcomes, an example of which appears for all to see right here.
I think that sometimes you mix up pedantic with rigour. The two aren't the same.

Don't take that the wrong way mind you Ekk, I enjoy reading your stuff very much so what I just posted was really meant in the kindest way, not in a hurtful or spiteful manner. Sometimes a bit hard to convey the right context or emotion on the web.

My opinion isn't about the posts you copied beeing improved or not, the idea and the way you "use" it itself isn't what I like to see on this forum.
It's still very confusing and not looking logical when you just improve those posts you copied.

I would also like to note, that it's me, that needs to agree with how you work as a moderator, since only explaining things to a user will not help.
There're 5 active administrators myself and (TerraMrs, spacecowboy, rocktchick87, Klaus Schmidt (who shares the same german language with you)), we're the people you should ask if it's ok or not.

And explaining something to a single person in private, is not going to help the whole forum community.

Also, do not project, or force your personal life and frustrations onto this forum, as some people have noticed, including myself, you're using your real life as an example of people and limitations.
Please accept that the majority of several most active forum users, who I chat often with, ARE able to read a discussion with more than 1, even more than 3 side discussions in it. But are actually very confused, even irritated when their discussion is tored appart when the topic is splitted.
Actually breaking the authors replies, and how it's meant to be written.
If there're 2 active discussions, just creating a new topic, sharing in the others "from now on, discussions related to .... continue in {new topic}".. and even this should be "limitted".

And just the idea, that you at when you see it fit, can add 10 or more quoted posts.. forcing everyone to read them to continue the discussion, at a very low quality, knowing that this forum "never" allows a good in style format of those posts. Is only going to irritate people more... It's not the first time I get people to complain about you.., an other comment by someone was as example "be less serious" etc.. so please accept this is a forum, a place with many diffrent opinions, including writing style.

You're a moderator, but it's meant to intervene very often, intervene when it's really getting messy, in a flame war etc.. when topics really get too long, and if possible {99.99% of the cases} avoid a split, etc..

Just keep this idea with moderating: "Would you like to see your topics changed with your economic formulas, to the "idea" of how it should be, from someone else with total diffrent ideals ?"

Concerning anything else, you're one of the best and most active users, you try to do you best, and I trust you to be a moderator, just try to keep it on a way everyone (or atleast most people) can live with it.
People in the world do not only share diffrent language.. but many diffrent ideas.. I've grown up (12+) with knowing people from many places on the world using the internet, I'm using forums for years, and this isn't my first community I manage, and people really have sometimes strange ideas... but I've also noticed some of my ideas are strange to many others in the world.. So are some of your ideas/opinions Ekkehard, and almost everyone has them.. so we need to look at what most people want in this community, and if you're not sure, you can even just put up a "poll" in the SpaceFellowship discussion forum, to ask what other people on this forum think about it. In some way, we're a democracy, cause if we're not, only a few citizens will stay, all others will emigrate..